A warning from Two Planks is a commendation. But if he's your guru, we're not going to get on.

No, that's not the answer I want. If I am a bot - and I'm not - are we having a conversation?

I am not sure I like your phrasing, but yes. Our faculties are the means by which we gain awareness, but faculties do not themselves perceive things and when we perceive things we are not perceiving faculties. We perceive with our sight, but we do not see our sight and our sight itself sees nothing. If that is the same as what you're saying, then yes. — Bartricks

I am assuming in light of the responses on your thread, especially the ones that have been deleted, is the cause for you being leery about my phrasing. Otherwise there is no reason not to "like" my phrasing, since it is precisely describing what's going on.

My other question to you is about this "agency/agent" you mention, Is it the christian agent?.

The sensible faculties are through which awareness operates, — skyblack

I took the point here to be that our faculties are the means of awareness (with which I agree). But I dislike 'through which awareness operates', for awareness doesn't operate as awareness is not an agent. Through which awareness is achieved - yes. Through which awareness operates - no, not really.

but the faculties do not create awareness, — skyblack

Not sure what you mean here - yes, they do, but not by themselves as it depends how we acquired them.

So, if I'd just said a blanket 'yes' I'd have been agreeing with a view that isn't, in my view, quite right. But I thought the gist of what you were saying was correct: the faculties are the means by which we achieve awareness (when or if we do).

Otherwise there is no reason not to "like" my phrasing, since it is precisely describing what's going on. — skyblack

I didn't think it did - not as far as I am concerned anyway, hence my dislike. But Iike I say, I agree with the gist.

My other question to you is about this "agency/agent" you mention, Is it the christian agent?. — skyblack

Not to my knowledge. Why would it matter? Are you one of those lucky people who knows how things are with the universe prior to investigating it? And if I said 'yes', would that give you what you need in order to be able to know that my argument in the OP was faulty?

Here's a question for you: are you, by any chance, a naturalist?

I was going to respond to your previous post when the above showed up, so will stop after answering your question.

Why would it matter? — Bartricks

It matters, because then one isn't investigating. One cannot investigate clearly if the investigation is through any kind of lens, secular or religious, sublime or mundane, so on and so forth. All my threads have touched on this. That said thank you for the prior response.

I am not religious; not a Christian, not anything. I just uncover and follow arguments where they lead.

Now, if you were like that, then you'd know if wouldn't matter a dot if I was religious - you'd just assess the argument on its own merits. But you're not - you're one of them. Cut from exactly the same cloth. I wouldn't want you going around flattering yourself that you're a follower of Reason - you ain't.

I wouldn't want you going around flattering yourself that you're a follower of Reason - you ain't. — Bartricks

You are quite right sir, i am not a "follower".of anything. Be well.

You are quite right sir, i amnot a follower.. Be well. — skyblack

I said you're not a follower of Reason. I didn't say you weren't a follower. Again with the phrasing.

I said you're not a follower of Reason. I didn't say you weren't a follower. Again with the phrasing. — Bartricks

Right. I added "of anything". for emphasis. Do you know why? I don't think you would know why. You know why you wouldn't know it? Because you haven't understood the workings of reason. Do you know how i can tell? By your statements.

Had you known the workings of reason you would have understood that reason ultimately turns on itself, When reason matures in reasoning it kills itself. That's the actualization of reason. Maybe therein lies the glory of reason.

But i get it, you are simply parroting without having understood. Just a mere follower.

Not that it matters but do you know why i came to this thread? Because i felt bad so many were ganging up on you. I will leave you to observe how quickly you turned on me, in spite of your own advice to others about focusing on the OP rather than the person.

Because you haven't understood the workings of reason. Do you know how i can tell? By your statements. — skyblack

Really? This from someone who thinks you can reject an argument if the one making the argument is a Christian! You really sure you know about the workings of reason?

Had you known the workings of reason you would have understood that reason ultimately turns on itself, — skyblack

Really? What does that even mean? Is your degree (should you have one) in something with 'studies' in the title?

Anyway, you've lost focus - engage with the OP!

Not that it matters but do you know why i came to this thread? Because i felt bad so many were ganging up on you. I will leave you to observe how quickly you turned on me, in spite of your own advice to others about focusing on the OP rather than the person. — skyblack

Er, well stop trying to be my savior - I really don't need one - and focus on the OP!!

Sigh. Here we go again.

Here is my argument for the truth of the first premise. Imagine some clouds form into shapes that appear to spell out "there's a pie in your the oven". Are you being told something? — Bartricks

Told? No. But I do know something. That the clouds make a "There's a pie in your the oven" shape. Or can we not agree on that either?

But I think that can't be correct, for just imagine that putting the pie in the oven somehow did actually cause the clouds to form into those shapes. Imagine, if you like, that the steam coming out of your oven as the pie cooks is what forms into those shapes and that this wouldn't have happened had there been no pie in your oven. Well, it seems just as clear in this case that you did not acquire knowledge that there was a pie in your oven — Bartricks

It very clearly seems you did. So, if we know that B is necessary for A, and we see A, then we do not know that B is the case?

And knowledge can apparently only come from some agent telling you something? Yikes.

That is, the pie was not using the clouds as a means of communicating its location to you. — Bartricks

Right. When was that ever suggested? What's being asked is whether or not you can know that a pie is in the oven given that a necessary consequent of the pie being in the oven is observed. The answer is yes. No one is trying to say that pies are talking to you (though you do have a history of talking to your food so I understand your confusion)

It seems to me that what's preventing you from acquiring knowledge in this sort of case is that you have acquired a true belief from an 'apparent' representation, not a real one. — Bartricks

You don't get better than that. By definition. You cannot perceive something beyond the "apparent representations". Because "apparent representations" are by definition all you can perceive. If something being apparent automatically guarantees that it may not be knowledge then that applies to everything.

Really? This from someone who thinks you can reject an argument if the one making the argument is a Christian! You really sure you know about the workings of reason? — Bartricks

Really? What does that even mean? Is your degree (should you have one) in something with 'studies' in the title? — Bartricks

You cannot seriously tell me you're not trolling. You don't see the irony? C'mon those were literally in the same comment, a paragraph apart.

We are getting along just fine and I'm working on being less sneery.
And Mr. Guru has his own opinions.
Back to the OP, it seems our faculty of awareness is an observable state that should be unaffected by our speculating on theory 1 or theory 2, (evolution or agency).

There is also the question 'is the faculty of awareness emergent?'. First it didn't exist, then it emerged in simple form and developed to its complex form. That would look to be evolutionary.

I do not understand why you think that whether or not the states our faculties generate in us make us aware of things will be unaffected by how we came to be in them.

Take this message or 'message'. If it has been generated by a bot and not a person, then it's not a real message and no conversation is occurring here. Whereas if it has been created by an agent - me - then it is a message and this is a conversation (unless you are a bot, of course).

Why is this? Well, because if this is bot-created then it is not a representation, even though it is indistinguishable from one in terms of its intrinsic features.

Apply that to all states of awareness or 'awareness'. If your visual and other sensible impressions are the product of blind evolutionary forces, then they are bot-generated (by definition - for they are blind and so do not express an agent's will). And thus though no different in terms of their intrinsic features from what they would be if an agent was responsible for them, they are nevertheless incapable of giving you any awareness of a world.

So, whether or not this message is a message or a 'message' has everything to do with who or what is generating it. Whether it is me or a bot makes a world of difference, for in one case we are conversing whereas in the other you are being duped.

Whether our faculties have developed slowly or fast makes no difference to the point. What's important is whether they were designed or the product of blind forces. The speed at which they developed is completely irrelevant.

To see this, imagine once more that this 'message' is bot generated. But imagine it took ages for the bot to generate it. Will that make any difference to whether or not it constitutes a message or a 'message'? Obviously not.

They fail in every case: that's what I'm arguing. That 'if' our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary processes - that is, if we just evolved them - then they never give us any real awareness of anything. — Bartricks

This is what I'm getting at. You seem to view current mental state as dependent on some agency and somehow our mental state is different if it where evolved. I'm just saying our mental state is what it is regardless.
As far as messaging, that gets to what I mentioned about information pixies. To me, mental input comes as only physical signals and our brains have to use algorithms to sort meaning. The bot example is a tricky one for me. In a format like this we would all be susceptible to being fooled since the only input is what we see on our screens.

You don't seem to be getting the point.

If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not provide us with any true awareness of anything (including that). As we are aware of some things, we are not wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces. — Bartricks

I'm not sure I understand your argument. You say:

If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything — Bartricks

I believe this is not true. I won't justify that, I'll just look at your justification for making your claim:

Here is my argument for the truth of the first premise. Imagine some clouds form into shapes that appear to spell out "there's a pie in your the oven". Are you being told something? No. If unguided - by which I mean, unguided by any agency - natural forces produced those shapes in the sky, then it was not imparting information to you. It was just pure fluke that, to you, the clouds appeared to be trying to tell you something. They were not 'trying' to tell you anything, for they are not agents and so are not in the 'trying' business. — Bartricks

In you premise, you talk about our faculties of awareness being created by "unguided evolutionary forces." In you justification, you talk about events in the world being created "unguided by any agency" without any reference I could find to the creation of our awareness. I don't see how this justifies your premise. I read through the rest of your posts also, but couldn't find clarification. What did I miss?

A different take on the same issue. Is it your position that Darwinian evolution is an "unguided evolutionary force." I think that brings us to the question whether natural selection can be considered a guiding agency. I know that was a controversial question back in the early days of evolutionary theory. I don't know the status of that question today.

Another question - to what extent does your argument hinge on the belief that the physical and functional basis of our faculties of awareness is too complex to have been created by natural selection and other physical and biological phenomena?

It doesn't have anything to do with it.

If clouds form into what look like words, are you being talked to? Don't change the example. Don't imagine there is someone manipulating the clouds. They just formed those shapes unguided by any agent. Don't ask 'how do I know there's no agent behind it?'.
Just imagine the clouds formed those shapes by fluke. Are you being talked to?

Just imagine the clouds formed those shapes by fluke. Are you being talked to? — Bartricks

What does that have to do with whether or not "our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces?"

You said you didn't understand my argument. So I am taking you through it. Or have you already decided that because you don't understand it, there isn't one? That's a 'yes' right?
So okay - you don't understand the argument. What do you want me to do about it? I guess some people just can't get some points. I seem to remember reading an interview with Peter Singer where he said that he used to think everyone could understand this or that argument if it was explained clearly enough. But now, after years of teaching, he's come to the conclusion that some people are just very thick and beyond help (though he may have said it more kindly). I'm fast becoming persuaded of that as well.

I shall try once more to motivate some interest in my profound and beautiful argument.

When are you perceiving something? Well, when the 'representative contents' of your perceptual state matches how things are in reality. (Philosophers currently like to spill a lot of ink debating whether these states place us in direct or indirect contact with reality - it's beside the point, however).

However, for that to work the relevant mental state needs actually to have some representative contents. That is, it needs actually to be representing something to be the case.

Yet it will not be if what produced it in you were unguided processes. For example, this message here has no representative contents if it is the product of a bot. It will appear to, but it won't actually. If I, a real agent, have written it, then it really does have the representative contents it appears to have. But if a bot has produced it, then it does not have the representative contents it appears to have.

Well, if our perceptual faculties are bot-built, then the states they create in us are bot-created. And as such although they appear to have representative contents - and thus appear to be capable of giving us perceptual awareness of a world - they will not in fact have any. For only agents can make representations. Again: this is not a real message if a bot created it. For a bot cannot make representations. And so if those mental states of yours that you take to be giving you a perceptual awareness of the world are in fact bot-produced, then they are not making any representations and thus you are not in fact perceptually aware of a world at all. You are having an accurate dream.

Of course, you are not having an accurate dream; you are in fact perceptually aware of a world. FOr like I say, it is not really possible - not within the bounds of sanity anyway - to doubt that we are aware of anything. And thus we must conclude that our perceptual states are attempts by an agency to communicate to us about the world (this was Berkeley's view, incidentally - he thought the sensible world was a language a god was using to talk to us with). For then and only then would they be capable of giving us perceptual awareness of the world, for then and only then would they have representative contents.

I am arguing that if our faculties are a product of unguided evolution, then they do 'not' provide us with any awareness of the pie in the oven. — Bartricks

So basically if humans are a product of evolution, then we cannot perceive. If we were created then we can. Is that what you mean?

I argued this by showing how the lack of agential guidance would mean that our situation is that of someone having an accurate dream about a pie. — Bartricks

But the problem here is that if no one tells me that there is a pie in the oven I will not know. So how will I ever know that there is a pie in the oven?

I am somewhat puzzled, then, that you should ask me to show you the connection given that the entire OP is devoted to doing precisely that. — Bartricks

Actually it is not. It is devoted to explaining that you think we are blind without the hand of a god guiding us.

If by saying that our sense could not work if they are a product of evolution you think that you have explained, sorry but you failed to explain anything.
With either created eyes or evolved eyes I can still see the pie in the oven if it is there.

Thinking higher thoughts (not focusing on chemicals for example) is good is it leads to character building. But nobody really knowns what "God" is so atheists can sometimes be the greatest believers of them all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch-DliKSGu0

You're just ignoring the argument I made.
Do you know what a 'state with representative contents' is?
Perception happens by means of them.

This is a representation: I am in a room. Or at least it is if I am not a bot. If I am a bot, it isn't.

So, exactly the same squiggles. But if a bot put them on the screen, they're not a representation. Whereas if I did, then they are.

Any kind of penny dropping yet? Same squiggles. Indiscernible from your perspective. Yet whether they are representing something or not depends crucially on what created them. Not on how they appear to you or on whether they cause you to acquire true beliefs. For if a bot created those squiggles then even if I am indeed in a room, this does not magically make the squiggles express a proposition with representative contents.

So.....and this is pointless, I know and you are just going to make silly assertions again.....that applies to all states with representative contents. They won't be representing anything unless an agent was using them for that purpose. If blind natural forces created them, then though they will be indiscernible from states with representative contents, they won't actually be representing anything and thus will be incapable of being accurate. (You may still acquire accurate beliefs from them, but you won't be perceiving anything).

Thus, we are not perceiving anything if our faculties of awareness are bot-built. We will think we are. But we won't be.

We are, of course. Thus our faculties are not bot-built.

If I write you a note saying "The cat is on the mat" is the note telling you that the cat is on the mat? No. I am. By means of the note. The note is telling you nothing. I am telling you something by means of the note.

So, in a way, the note and the inky squiggles it has on it, are not representing anything to be the case. I am doing the representing. I am using the inky squiggles to do so, but that doesn't mean that the inky squiggles or the paper on which they're written are doing any representing.

What if the note was the creation of blind natural forces and you just found it on the floor (so it was not being used by an agent to convey information to you, and nor have the squiggles been created by any agent)? Are you now being told that the cat is on the mat? No. You'll think you are. But you're not. For as noted above, neither the note nor the inky markings are themselves doing any representing. In order for the note to have representative contents it needs to either have been created by a mind for the purpose of representing something to be the case, or it needs to be being used by a mind for the purpose of reprsenting something to be the case. Absent this agential input, the note is not really a 'note' at all, just an apparent one - one that you can and will easily mistake for a note.

Nothing changes if, rather than inky notes, we are talking about mental states. Philosophers talk about mental states with representative contents. So, imagine a visual impression of a cat on a mat. Well, it 'represents' the cat to be on the mat. Though, well, it doesn't. The mental state itself is not doing any representing - that's as confused as thinking that the note itself tells you the cat is on the mat. The mental state represents nothing at all unless it was either created by an agent with the express purpose of representing something to you, or is being used by an agent with the express purpose of representing something to you. If neither is true, then the mental state is not representing anything to be the case and is thus incapable of providing you with any kind of perceptual awareness of anything.

So, the visual impression of a cat on the mat is certainly capable of providing one with a perceptual awareness of a cat on a mat. But it won't do so unless it was designed by an agent to provide you with that awareness, or it is being used by an agent to provide you with that awareness.

For as noted above, neither the note nor the inky markings are themselves doing any representing. — Bartricks

You have actually addressed something I was asking about. Is it fair to say communication uses physical matter only to transfer mental content from person 1 to person 2?
But then you muddled it with the agency business.
Has anyone every taught you the fine art of doing a U-turn?

If I step onto a digital scale and it says "250", then I can conclude from reading that display that I weigh 250; i.e., 250 represents my weight. There is no bypassing this; the 250 on that digital display represents my weight. In fact, that's a better reason to believe I weigh 250 than if some person (e.g., guy at a carnival) looked at me and told me I weigh 250.

Also, your justification for your first premise is nothing but red herrings through and through. That blind natural forces might hypothetically produce sky writing would be a testament of one class of things blind natural forces can do, but says nothing about what blind natural forces cannot do. Your argument for what blind natural forces cannot do transparently shows the flaw in your argument; you're circularly assuming blind natural forces cannot produce agents... as clearly conveyed in this leading question:

What if the note was the creation of blind natural forces and you just found it on the floor (so it was not being used by an agent to convey information to you, and nor have the squiggles been created by any agent)? — Bartricks

...but isn't that your premise? Nowhere have you shown blind natural forces in fact cannot produce agents.

So okay - you don't understand the argument. What do you want me to do about it? I guess some people just can't get some points. — Bartricks

Could I suggest starting over in a new thread? Consider your OP here a first draft, and see how you can improve on it. Shorter, clearer, more direct.

The scale example doesn't work. First, they're designed. Second, I have not denied that one can acquire true beliefs from bot-created faculties. You acquire the true belief that there is a pie in the oven from the cloud imagery. Third, you are using the scales - or 'scales' if we suppose them to be a flukey product of blind natural forces - to acquire information about your weight. So what, exactly, are you trying to challenge? I mean, let's imagine that, unlikely as it is, the scales are a product of blind natural forces. So it's a bizarre plant or something. And when you step on it it emits a seed that is paper-like and has squiggles on it that look, by fluke, like 'your weight is 250'. Are you being told your weight? No. That 'note' has no representative contents. You have acquired a true belief about your weight, but you have not been told it. (If the squiggles look like 'good morning' have you been greeted?

As to your second point, so you think the clouds are agents? If they are, then yes, they can tell me about the pie. But this will not challenge my case, for we would have to conclude that evolutionary forces express a will.
If you accept that the clouds are not agents, then once more my case goes through.

I have not, note, assumed that natural forces cannot create agents. Which premise assumes it? I am arguing that our faculties of awareness, if they are to provide us with any as opposed to generating accurate dreams, need to have been designed for that purpose, or installed in us for that purpose. Thus an agent needs to be behind our possession of them if they are to 'represent' anything to be the case. But I have said nothing about how that agent might get to be on the scene, and thus I have left open the possibility that agents can be built by blind natural forces. (I don't think they are, but nothing in my argument rules it out).